Multiple Victims Reported Shot In San Bernardino

[Marokai Backbeat]

All we know for sure is that the circumstances of this shooting are far too muddy to know which side's narrative won, although it appears to be leaning in favor of the Right.

I hate that this is what shootings are, now.

[DrScholl]

All we know for sure is that the circumstances of this shooting are far too muddy to know which side's narrative won, although it appears to be leaning in favor of the Right.

How so? The whole ISIS did it theory is not holding water and the target of the shooter suggests this was more about an issue at work than anything else.

[Joe Republic]

All we know for sure is that the circumstances of this shooting are far too muddy to know which side's narrative won, although it appears to be leaning in favor of the Right.

I hate that this is what shootings are, now.

I know, me too, but you'll get used to it.

All we know for sure is that the circumstances of this shooting are far too muddy to know which side's narrative won, although it appears to be leaning in favor of the Right.

How so? The whole ISIS did it theory is not holding water and the target of the shooter suggests this was more about an issue at work than anything else.

The shooters' names were Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik.  Any other details are irrelevant.

[afleitch]

All we know for sure is that the circumstances of this shooting are far too muddy to know which side's narrative won, although it appears to be leaning in favor of the Right.

Doesntsaymoooslemscancarrygunsinmehconstitution.

[DrScholl]

All we know for sure is that the circumstances of this shooting are far too muddy to know which side's narrative won, although it appears to be leaning in favor of the Right.

I hate that this is what shootings are, now.

I know, me too, but you'll get used to it.

All we know for sure is that the circumstances of this shooting are far too muddy to know which side's narrative won, although it appears to be leaning in favor of the Right.

How so? The whole ISIS did it theory is not holding water and the target of the shooter suggests this was more about an issue at work than anything else.

The shooters' names were Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik.  Any other details are irrelevant.

Names are not my point, what I was saying is that the assertion that this was an ISIS attack is unfounded at this point. I'm not going to argue about it, so we will agree to disagree before this gets out of control.

[Joe Republic]

All we know for sure is that the circumstances of this shooting are far too muddy to know which side's narrative won, although it appears to be leaning in favor of the Right.

How so? The whole ISIS did it theory is not holding water and the target of the shooter suggests this was more about an issue at work than anything else.

The shooters' names were Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik.  Any other details are irrelevant.

Names are not my point, what I was saying is that the assertion that this was an ISIS attack is unfounded at this point. I'm not going to argue about it, so we will agree to disagree before this gets out of control.

I know it's unfounded.  The point is that the Right has basically won this shooting, simply by virtue of the shooters' identities.  Their actual beliefs and motives are irrelevant beyond that.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I know it's unfounded.  The point is that the Right has basically won this shooting, simply by virtue of the shooters' identities.  Their actual beliefs and motives are irrelevant beyond that.

Oh those have been discovered according to the 3 headlines on Drudge:

RECENTLY TRAVELED TO SAUDI ARABIA
'RADICALIZED'
'TERRORIST LINK'

No further explanation necessary.

[Reaganfan]

I find it disgusting that people are literally desperate to avoid the fact that, yes, some Muslims can be terrorists. Not all Muslims, but some.

And good luck getting the refugees in now (yes, I know the attackers likely were not refugees). Whether we should or shouldn't take them in is irrelevant, because the issue is dead. Once again, radical Islamic terrorists have struck us. This is the third major attack by them since 9/11.

Oh, the refugees are coming in. Obama has made very clear that he doesn't care what anyone thinks.

I think this terrorist asshole and the likely tone-deaf response from all corners may just elect Trump President, unfortunately.

I just love how different the response would be if this was just your run of the mill workplace shooting by a crazy (non-muslim) person. But it's a muslim so suddenly everyone is up in arms. Otherwise we would just have to accept the shooting as a "price of freedom" or some such other pro-gun nonsense.

Of course it could still be the result of a crazy guy who was mad at his workplace for one reason or another (maybe they made fun of his religion) and got his wife involved in his sick plot. Even if religion was involved, it doesn't change the fact the man was sick in his head, just like other mass shooters/murderers.

They've already found ties to radicals abroad. It's over.

What's over? Is this more tragic if it's terrorism versus workplace violence? And as Badger points out, this could be a combination of both. Guy gets radicalized. Throw in some badgering at work due to his religion and viola. I don't see how this can be more tragic whether it was terrorism, workplace violence or a combination of both.

Of course people need to find out what it is so they can properly respond to it. For conservatives it's "isolated incident by crazy guy" vs "all the muslims are terrorists!!!!" For liberals it's " we need gun reform!!!" vs "isolated incident by crazy muslim guy".

As for me, I find the "all the muslims are terrorists" thinking to be most dangerous to America right now so......

Nobody is saying "all Muslims".

Except when you did, just last night.

I posted a video clip from an ABC documentary about how the US. Government's depiction of the Japanese was that of subhuman cockroaches. They attacked us. They were our enemy. We were at war. They were willing to kill themselves to kill innocent people. How is that any different than our enemy today other than the fact that they aren't a specific country or from a specific country's military?

Where did the rules of war change between 1945 and 2015? Does the United States just give up? Back off?

We had a liberal President (Harry Truman) who had two options: 1. Invade Japan or 2. Nuke Japan. There was no third option of retreat.

It seems like today there is this liberal mentality of trying sooo hard to dismiss attacks as incidents or enemies as "lone wolves". Why are you afraid of admitting we are in a broad struggle against those who pervert Islam?

[Mr. Reactionary]

I know it's unfounded.  The point is that the Right has basically won this shooting, simply by virtue of the shooters' identities.  Their actual beliefs and motives are irrelevant beyond that.

Nobody "won". This shouldn't be a game. The only implication I get of a side "winning" is that the other side can no longer easily use this tragedy as a political token to yell about gun control and planned parenthood. This concept of "winning" is why I avoid both parties.

[Bigby]

I find it disgusting that people are literally desperate to avoid the fact that, yes, some Muslims can be terrorists. Not all Muslims, but some.

And good luck getting the refugees in now (yes, I know the attackers likely were not refugees). Whether we should or shouldn't take them in is irrelevant, because the issue is dead. Once again, radical Islamic terrorists have struck us. This is the third major attack by them since 9/11.

Oh, the refugees are coming in. Obama has made very clear that he doesn't care what anyone thinks.

I think this terrorist asshole and the likely tone-deaf response from all corners may just elect Trump President, unfortunately.

I just love how different the response would be if this was just your run of the mill workplace shooting by a crazy (non-muslim) person. But it's a muslim so suddenly everyone is up in arms. Otherwise we would just have to accept the shooting as a "price of freedom" or some such other pro-gun nonsense.

Of course it could still be the result of a crazy guy who was mad at his workplace for one reason or another (maybe they made fun of his religion) and got his wife involved in his sick plot. Even if religion was involved, it doesn't change the fact the man was sick in his head, just like other mass shooters/murderers.

They've already found ties to radicals abroad. It's over.

What's over? Is this more tragic if it's terrorism versus workplace violence? And as Badger points out, this could be a combination of both. Guy gets radicalized. Throw in some badgering at work due to his religion and viola. I don't see how this can be more tragic whether it was terrorism, workplace violence or a combination of both.

Of course people need to find out what it is so they can properly respond to it. For conservatives it's "isolated incident by crazy guy" vs "all the muslims are terrorists!!!!" For liberals it's " we need gun reform!!!" vs "isolated incident by crazy muslim guy".

As for me, I find the "all the muslims are terrorists" thinking to be most dangerous to America right now so......

Nobody is saying "all Muslims".

Except when you did, just last night.

I posted a video clip from an ABC documentary about how the US. Government's depiction of the Japanese was that of subhuman cockroaches. They attacked us. They were our enemy. We were at war. They were willing to kill themselves to kill innocent people. How is that any different than our enemy today other than the fact that they aren't a specific country or from a specific country's military?

Where did the rules of war change between 1945 and 2015? Does the United States just give up? Back off?

We had a liberal President (Harry Truman) who had two options: 1. Invade Japan or 2. Nuke Japan. There was no third option of retreat.

It seems like today there is this liberal mentality of trying sooo hard to dismiss attacks as incidents or enemies as "lone wolves". Why are you afraid of admitting we are in a broad struggle against those who pervert Islam?

Because we're so scared of offending anyone, even our enemies, that we no longer want the truth. The truth is too painful.

[Joe Republic]

I know it's unfounded.  The point is that the Right has basically won this shooting, simply by virtue of the shooters' identities.  Their actual beliefs and motives are irrelevant beyond that.

Nobody "won". This shouldn't be a game. The only implication I get of a side "winning" is that the other side can no longer easily use this tragedy as a political token to yell about gun control and planned parenthood. This concept of "winning" is why I avoid both parties.

I 100% agree.  But that's the way it is.

[Joe Republic]

It seems like today there is this liberal mentality of trying sooo hard to dismiss attacks as incidents or enemies as "lone wolves". Why are you afraid of admitting we are in a broad struggle against those who pervert Islam?

It seems like today there is this conservative mentality of trying sooo hard to dismiss attacks as incidents or enemies as "lone wolves". Why are you afraid of admitting we are in a broad struggle against widespread access to guns?

[SteveRogers]

I posted a video clip from an ABC documentary about how the US. Government's depiction of the Japanese was that of subhuman cockroaches. They attacked us. They were our enemy. We were at war. They were willing to kill themselves to kill innocent people. How is that any different than our enemy today other than the fact that they aren't a specific country or from a specific country's military?

Where did the rules of war change between 1945 and 2015? Does the United States just give up? Back off?

We had a liberal President (Harry Truman) who had two options: 1. Invade Japan or 2. Nuke Japan. There was no third option of retreat.

It seems like today there is this liberal mentality of trying sooo hard to dismiss attacks as incidents or enemies as "lone wolves". Why are you afraid of admitting we are in a broad struggle against those who pervert Islam?

We didn't just depict Japanese soldiers as subhuman, but rather the entire Japanese race. Did you literally not watch the very next minute of the video you posted where it talked about how that mentality lead us to round up loyal American citizens and lock them in internment camps because their skin was the wrong color. That was a very, very, very bad thing. Your argument is bad.

[Joe Republic]

I know it's unfounded.  The point is that the Right has basically won this shooting, simply by virtue of the shooters' identities.  Their actual beliefs and motives are irrelevant beyond that.

Oh those have been discovered according to the 3 headlines on Drudge:

RECENTLY TRAVELED TO SAUDI ARABIA
'RADICALIZED'
'TERRORIST LINK'

No further explanation necessary.

[7,052,770]

Why are you afraid of admitting we are in a broad struggle against those who pervert Islam?

[SNJ1985]

Time for more xenophobia justification.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

White person shoots random people: It's horrible that this person killed innocent people.

Brown person shoots random people: It's horrible that the media would call him mentally ill if he was a WHITE MAN!

Aaron Alexis, the perpetrator of the 2013 Washington Navy Yard shooting, wasn't white; and the media generally depicted him as a troubled or mentally ill man (you can find plenty of articles on the Internet, from mainstream media outlets, that talk about his mental health).

[Frodo]

The FBI is now treating this massacre as a possible terrorist attack.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No one has ever damn well said there are no terrorists that are Muslims. The problem has always been there are people who generalize all Muslims for what an individual does.

At this point, it looks like this was a workplace shooting, so any argument that it was an attack by ISIS is a stretch.

Yeah just like the Fort Hood attack was "workplace violence"

The term would be yes, not "yeah". From what we know about this case, there was so sort of dispute at a holiday party and the shooter came back with a gun. That sounds like a workplace shooting, not an attack by ISIS.

It was clearly premeditated.  You think he went home, made a pipe bomb in an hour, and came back to work?  They found thousands of rounds of ammo and 12 pipe bombs in his house! This wasn't just a spur of the moment thing, you crazy.   And its already been confirmed he was radicalized, stop grasping at straws

As pointed out by others, why would ISIS attack a random holiday party? The idea that this was an ISIS attack doesn't add up.

While it looks doubtful that the ISIS leadership picked this target, it does appear likely that shooters were inspired by ISIS or its progenitor Al-Qaida. The level of preparation they apparently took clearly indicates that.  As Badger pointed out already, this doesn't have to be a case of either/or.  The circumstances as currently known indicate that this was likely both a radical-inspired attack and a workplace shooting.

That said, the idea that the solution to events such as this is rounding up millions of people for the acts of a few is not only morally repugnant, it's absurd to think that it would work.  We'd be doing exactly what those radicals want us to do, and in the process radicalize for them myriads both here and abroad.

[dead0man]

All we know for sure is that the circumstances of this shooting are far too muddy to know which side's narrative won, although it appears to be leaning in favor of the Right.

I hate that this is what shootings are, now.

I know, me too, but you'll get used to it.

[RogueBeaver]

CNN reporting that one of the shooters pledged allegiance to ISIS on FB just before the attack.

[RI]

Is this now the watershed "homegrown Islamic terrorist" incident?

[Green Line]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-victim-of-california-attack-had-argued-with-shooter-about-islam/

Farook had recently gotten into an argument with his coworker Nicholas Thalasinos about whether or not Islam is a religion of peace.  Thalasinos was killed in the attack on Wednesday...

He sure showed him

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No one has ever damn well said there are no terrorists that are Muslims. The problem has always been there are people who generalize all Muslims for what an individual does.

At this point, it looks like this was a workplace shooting, so any argument that it was an attack by ISIS is a stretch.

Too soon?

[Tender Branson]

It's also possible that the couple were Far Right-Wing nuts.

Turns out not to be the case. I posted this without knowing that the couple had contact with Islamist radicals overseas ...

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

It's also possible that the couple were Far Right-Wing nuts.

Turns out not to be the case. I posted this without knowing that the couple had contact with Islamist radicals overseas ...

Most posts were posted with a similar misunderstanding.